May 08, 2013

Revisiting Benghazi
Posted by James Lamond

Today’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on Benghazi:
Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa raised more questions than it
answered. These are not questions about the assault on Benghazi or the response
to the events, but rather questions on the process and rationale behind the hearing.

The tragic Benghazi
attack has been thoroughly examined and has established a record with more
than 30 hearings, interviews and briefings with senior government
officials – including high-profile hearings with former Secretaries Clinton and
Panetta as well as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey; the
review of more than 25,000 pages of documents; and a thorough
investigation by an Accountability Review Board (ARB), chaired by two
distinguished nonpartisan statesmen: Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral
Michael Mullen.

Meanwhile, today’s hearing
was the follow-up to a report released last month by the Republican chairs of
five committees, who excluded
their Democratic counterparts from the process - an unusual move on a sensitive national security issue. Needless to say there are a
few flaws with the process going into the hearing and concerns about how the Committee’s
methodology for its investigation.

Witness list: Was
Amb. Pickering denied an invitation to testify? This morning a new controversy
emerged about the witness list. Chairman Issa claimed in his opening remarks
that Amb. Pickering was asked to testify but declined. The State Department disputed
this telling ABC News that “Ambassador Pickering volunteered to appear… But Issa
said no.” And Amb. Pickering told
Andrea Mitchell “Yes, I'm willing to testify.” Jonathan Karl has the full
back and forth on this.

Amb. Pickering, in addition to leading the ARB is one of
America’s most distinguished and accomplished career diplomats having served as
Ambassador to Israel under President Reagan, President H.W. Bush’s UN Ambassador and Undersecretary in the
Clinton administration.

If he was denied a spot in today’s hearing this raises a lot
of questions about the purpose of the hearing. Much of the hearing focused on
the method of the investigation done by the ARB, and Pickering is best in a position
to address and answer these concerns. He answers many of the main points in an interview
this morning with Andrea Mitchell including the availability and logistics
for the aircraft show of force discussed in the hearing and he states that the
ARB did in fact interview Sec. Clinton, despite claims to the contrary. If the
purpose of the hearing was to determine what happened and address concerns
about the ARB report, then Amb. Pickering would be a logical witness to have
appear.

Military’s role in
the hearing. It is also curious, considering that much of the controversy
is over the military response, why there was not a representative from the
Pentagon at the hearing to discuss the military deliberations and operations
logistics. Spencer Ackerman reports
today that Pentagon officials insist “there was just no way that a small team
of special-operations forces could have saved four Americans in Benghazi during
last September’s deadly attacks.” This was an important part of the discussion
in today’s hearing and if there are still concerns remaining from the previous investigations
and hearings – including Chairman Depmsey’s testimony – then a representative
from the Pentagon able to speak to these issues should have been
present.

FEST deployment. One
of the items discussed in today’s hearing was whether or not the deployment of the
Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) could have been deployed quickly enough
to save lives in Benghazi. The FEST is the “United
States Government's only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to
respond to terrorist incidents worldwide.” While it is a rapid response team there
remains a question about how quickly such a team can actually be deployed. The website for the
FEST states that the team “leaves for an incident site within four hours of
notification, providing the fastest assistance possible.” The Defense Threat
Reduction Agency’s Foreign Consequence Management Deskbook
goes into details about the process and timing:

“In the event of a terrorist
incident, a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) and/or Consequence Management
Support Team (CMST) could be deployed to assist the country team in coordinating
the U.S. response… DOS will work with
the National Security Council (NSC) to coordinate interagency deliberations to:
1) assess requests for U.S. assistance, 2) identify the specific support to be
provided and the agencies that will provide that support, and 3) develop the
initial guidance required for responding organizations. This process may take between 4 to 6 hours, but a decision to deploy
the FEST could occur within 30 minutes of the event and it could be airborne
within 4 hours. More time (i.e., up to a few additional hours) would
probably be needed to deploy a CMST.”

Amb. Daniel Benjamin who was the top counterterrorism
official at the State Department at the time of the attack spoke specifically
to the decision making that took place on that day regarding the FEST
deployment:

“After
the attack, the first question to arise that involved the CT Bureau was whether
or not the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) should be deployed. This
interagency team is designed to assist and advise the U.S. Chief of Mission in
assessing crises and coordinating U.S. government crisis response activities.
The question of deployment was posed early, and the Department decided against
such a deployment. In my view, it was appropriate to pose the question, and the
decision was also the correct one. There is nothing automatic about a FEST deployment,
and in some circumstances, a deployment could well be counterproductive.”

Talking points controversy:
Once again the controversy over the talking points that UN Ambassador Susan
Rice used following the attack has returned. The argument over the talking
points that Amb. Rice used and the controversy over stating the possible connection
to the protests that were occurring throughout neighboring countries was a favorite
election year talking point for Republicans. The timeline and development of
the talking points has been repeatedly addressed. And as recently as last month
the
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, a career defense intelligence professional,
testified that they were accurate given the information at the time, stating “They
were the best we could do at the time. And also in light of our concerns from
both an intelligence and an investigatory standpoint, that is much as we should
say at the time.” This issue has been addressed and readdressed, if the purpose of the hearing was to uncover new information or address new concerns this was not it.

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use